Have you considered that our process of editing LTEs might be observed? At some point of the interface with the FT - say after a few LTEs are published -some editor may follow the links to check background (if this has not already happened).

I am not saying this is a bad thing. It would then be clear to them that the LTE is carefully and seriously worded.

I've never hidden the process - in fact I think I have even provided direct links on occasion to my texts, so this is not like it's done in secret.

But that's the whole point, isn't it: it's fully transparent: the blog has the harsher words, and also the process whereby this is transformed into a letter which follows their rules of behavior/writing. But the content is consistent, as that's the main thing.

The fact that it is fully transparent is, imho, why it becomes more powerful, because it contrasts with the opacity of other media.

However there is a difference between playing their game and gaming their system, as I'm sure we are all aware. The most important factor, as you noted elsewhere, is our understanding of a) the process by which the mainstream media consider, accept and edit content and b) the specific audiences they are addressing, and the language and form of argument that can attract attention.

The LTE is a useful door opener. But I hope the process can be one day extended to include more substantial articles. ;-)

Some of my edits attempt to find word choices that shift the frame from theirs to ours. The audience are not the editors but the readers: the goal is to get them to read text that will make them go 'huh?' because it comes from a different frame than they're used to. The "serious" wording is to get past the editors, and the "careful" wording is to influence the readers.